2015-07-13 9:30 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The thing is - it's not only about whitespace, otherwise I would probably >>> not bother with the generic interface. For my original problem, there is >>> simply no way to do this correctly in an extension w/o copying over all of >>> the logic from json.c, which I have to do right now, would rather not. >>> >> I am sorry - we are talking about JSON, not about any styled document. I >> disagree, so it has not be implemented as extension - the backport of JSON >> support is a extension. >> > > Hm... I'm having a hard time making sense of that statement, sorry. > > To reiterate: for my problem, that is escaping numerics that can > potentially overflow[1] under ECMAScript standard, I want to be able to > override the code that outputs the numeric converted to string. There is > no way in current implementation to do that *at all*, short of copying all > the code involved in producing JSON output and changing it at certain > points. One could try re-parsing JSON instead, but that doesn't actually > solve the issue, because type information is lost forever at that point. > > The whitespace unification was a mere side-effect of the original effort > on this patch. > The dynamic type change is some what I would not to do in database, really :) If you afraid about overflow, then convert numeric to string immediately - in this case, the client have to support both variant - so immediate cast should not be a problem. Anyway this check on max number should be implemented in our JSON(b) out functions (as warning?). Regards Pavel > > -- > Best regards, > Alex > > [1] > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/307179/what-is-javascripts-highest-integer-value-that-a-number-can-go-to-without-losin > >
